SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(MP) 496

A.M.KHANWILKAR, SHANTANU KEMKAR
Abhinesh Mahore – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Vivek Rusia for petitioners; Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER

Khanwilkar, C. J. -- 1. This petition takes exception to the notification dated 18.6.2014. During pendency of this petition as final notification was issued on 28.8.2014, even the said notification is made subject matter of challenge on the same ground.

2. The principal argument of the petitioner is that after expressing intent of inclusion of villages referred to in the first notification and on receipt of the objections from the interested persons to such inclusion, the Collector himself decided the objections and submitted his proposal to the Governor. That was the basis for issuance of the impugned notification dated 28.8.2014. In other words, the argument proceeds that the Governor has not considered the said objections himself, which is the mandate flowing from Article 243Q of the Constitution of India and in particular section 5-A(2) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961').

3. Section 5-A of the Act of 1961 was inserted as a consequence of the insertion of Part IX-A in the Constitution by 74th Amendment Act, 1992, which came into force from 1.6.1993. Section 5-A of the Act of 1961 was inserted in the State enactment vide M.P. M








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top